DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Sarin in Iraq
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 66, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/19/2004 02:39:20 PM · #1
Ok, both Sarin and Mustard gas show up in Iraq this week, yet Saddam told the U.N. that all his stockpiles were destroyed. What gives? And where's the press coverage? CNN cut away form the press conference to show John Kerry Speaking about something that happened fifty years ago. Meanwhile, back at the press conference the first question asked was about Abu Ghraib.

Hello, WMD here!
05/19/2004 03:16:14 PM · #2
Don't you get it? News of WMD won't help elect John F. Kerry (he severed in Vietnam you know) so it isn't worth wasting time on.
05/19/2004 03:30:00 PM · #3
Funny, ain't it? I heard quick blurbs on alot of news stations. "Two soldiers exposed, but just slight effects, when trying to disarm a shell with Sarin gas, on the roadside. The shell was probably a leftover from many years ago." SHEESH!
Kerry has yet to make a stand on anything, yet, right? How can I weigh the pluses and minuses when all he does is bash the other contender? (by the way, I am an INDEPENDENT voter).

Message edited by author 2004-05-19 15:31:31.
05/19/2004 04:55:22 PM · #4
made its way to the NYTimes
//www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/opinion/19SAFI.html

and the BBC //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm

Message edited by author 2004-05-19 16:57:51.
05/19/2004 05:21:06 PM · #5
Originally posted by thelsel:

Ok, both Sarin and Mustard gas show up in Iraq this week, yet Saddam told the U.N. that all his stockpiles were destroyed.


You can hardly call single 15+ year old shells "stockpiles" and certainly no evidence of recent WMD-programs.

In the same way you can't take an old forgotten musterdgasshell from the WW1 trenches and say that Germany still has a WMD-program and lied about destroying the whole stock.


05/19/2004 05:48:41 PM · #6
Originally posted by Azrifel:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Ok, both Sarin and Mustard gas show up in Iraq this week, yet Saddam told the U.N. that all his stockpiles were destroyed.


You can hardly call single 15+ year old shells "stockpiles" and certainly no evidence of recent WMD-programs.

In the same way you can't take an old forgotten musterdgasshell from the WW1 trenches and say that Germany still has a WMD-program and lied about destroying the whole stock.


They must have just honestly missed these when they got rid of all of them years ago and some terrorist in the desert just happened to find them. It's easy to misplace and lose track of your WMD's. I do it all the time. I'm sure no more will turn up.
05/19/2004 05:50:46 PM · #7
I'm sure more will turn up, but I am also sure that a government cannot track all their artillary shells like you can track a FedEx package.
The war with Iran was not a clean and decent 'all paperwork filled-out' war.

It would not surprise me if there still were caches of the stuff.

Message edited by author 2004-05-19 17:53:41.
05/19/2004 05:54:09 PM · #8
Originally posted by Azrifel:

I'm sure more will turn up, but I am also sure that a government cannot track all their artillary shells like you can track a FedEx package.

That may be true for "standard" munitions, but when the casing has been modified to hold nearly a gallon of Sarin, I think that an exception could be / should be made.

Ron
05/19/2004 06:05:08 PM · #9
Originally posted by RonB:


That may be true for "standard" munitions, but when the casing has been modified to hold nearly a gallon of Sarin, I think that an exception could be / should be made.

Ron


Curious where you got the info that it contained nearly a gallon of sarin.

Seems to be plenty of news coverage on this in general though.

//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml
05/19/2004 06:06:26 PM · #10
Originally posted by Azrifel:

It would not surprise me if there still were caches of the stuff.


But I thought WMD's did not exist and we had no reason to go to war?

And by the way, the big guns in my house I keep close tabs on but the smaller ones, I just let them lay around and don't keep track of them. I leave them in the yard, driveway, bathroom... If that were true you would want the police to invade my home.
05/19/2004 06:13:35 PM · #11
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:


That may be true for "standard" munitions, but when the casing has been modified to hold nearly a gallon of Sarin, I think that an exception could be / should be made.

Ron


Curious where you got the info that it contained nearly a gallon of sarin.

Seems to be plenty of news coverage on this in general though.

//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml
null

Fox news reported it here:
//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120401,00.html

Message edited by author 2004-05-19 18:14:58.
05/19/2004 07:32:02 PM · #12
Originally posted by Azrifel:


You can hardly call single 15+ year old shells "stockpiles" and certainly no evidence of recent WMD-programs.

In the same way you can't take an old forgotten musterdgasshell from the WW1 trenches and say that Germany still has a WMD-program and lied about destroying the whole stock.


Source fox news:
"The mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles that Saddam failed to account for in his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas."

The stockpiles I referred to were the ones that were supposedly destroyed. But you can make an argument that the other 1,000 unaccounted ordnances constitutes a stockpile as well. However, this only takes in account the "Mustard" gas ordnances. The "Sarin" gas shells are another story.

I don't know if Germany ever claimed to destroy mustard gas shells, but we all know what happened when no one kept tabs on what they were doing after WWI.
05/19/2004 08:05:09 PM · #13
Originally posted by thelsel:

Ok, both Sarin and Mustard gas show up in Iraq this week, yet Saddam told the U.N. that all his stockpiles were destroyed. What gives? And where's the press coverage? CNN cut away form the press conference to show John Kerry Speaking about something that happened fifty years ago. Meanwhile, back at the press conference the first question asked was about Abu Ghraib.

Hello, WMD here!


It is not confirmed yet,hold on your horses !
05/20/2004 03:59:31 AM · #14
Originally posted by thelsel:


I don't know if Germany ever claimed to destroy mustard gas shells, but we all know what happened when no one kept tabs on what they were doing after WWI.


Most were used in the war, some were lost and are still in the ground in Belgium and France and all the other ones (german & allied) were thrown into the Atlantic sea. That last idea was not so smart if you ask me.


05/20/2004 10:46:03 AM · #15
How do we know what the substance is? It hasn't been analyzed yet and had no markings on it. On what basis is General Kimmet jumping to the conclusion that it could be sarin gas? He even described it as a "homemade bomb."

And the question still remains: if Sadaam Hussein had an arsenel of a WMD why didn't he use it against the coalition forces when Iraq was invaded last year?
05/20/2004 11:18:12 AM · #16
Originally posted by Azrifel:

Most were used in the war, some were lost and are still in the ground in Belgium and France and all the other ones (german & allied) were thrown into the Atlantic sea. That last idea was not so smart if you ask me.


Actually, dumping them at sea was a very smart idea. Chemical agents are very easily hydrolyzed and would pose little risk in the quanitites released. The only exception would be the Lewisite munitions which contained arsenic. The problem is that they got lazy and failed to dump them off the continental shelf. Next thing you know, fisherman were snagging them in their nets at 200-300 foot deep water. Now you have a problem.

As far as finding a few munitions in Iraq, it's hardly something worth stopping the presses over. Detailed accountability was not in place for the Iraqi weapons program nor was it for the US program either. While building luxury homes near American University in DC, the contractors uncovered a bunch of burried chemical weapons. They were disposed of and forgotten about. It's not that uncommon. There are burried and forgotten munitions throughout Europe, China, the US, and Iraq. The ones we found recently could have been recovered by someone who remembers where they were burried. However, they typically are extremely corroded and fuzes and bursters are removed. The only way to use them is to wrap them in explosives and try to breach the shell from the outside. This method would greatly limit the ability of the agent to spread because it would be subject to the heat of the exposion for enough time to destroy most of it. It's very innefective. The conventional method is to use a burster tube in the center of the shell. This pushes the agent out and away from the exposion and disperses the agent fully.

In other words, we found an obsolute, innoprable, abondened chemical weapon wrapped in explosives. A far cry from a WMD program or an imminent threat.
05/20/2004 12:04:15 PM · #17
IS anyone here really foolish enough to think that Saddam destroyed all of his WMDs, yet made it so he or anyone else could not proove it?

Do you realize that not a SINGLE country that was against attacking Iraq thought that he had actualy destroyed them... Hell France and Russia came right out and said, well of course he still has them, but we still shouldn't attack him for it...

edit: I spell like a 4th grader!

Message edited by author 2004-05-20 12:05:56.
05/20/2004 03:49:35 PM · #18
Um...OK.

quote, from Colin Powell, February 24, 2001:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Refreshing to look back and see someone from the Bush administration actually telling the truth for once. :D
05/20/2004 03:55:26 PM · #19
Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Um...OK.

quote, from Colin Powell, February 24, 2001:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Refreshing to look back and see someone from the Bush administration actually telling the truth for once. :D


Powell is only technically with the Bush administration. Look at more of his statments and it becomes clear that he is in some outer " need to know " circle, out there beyond the Saudi ambassador and the guy who cleans the oval office
05/20/2004 04:03:45 PM · #20
Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Um...OK.

quote, from Colin Powell, February 24, 2001:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Refreshing to look back and see someone from the Bush administration actually telling the truth for once. :D


Your statement implies that most of those in the Bush administration do NOT tell the truth. Can you cite a specific instance when someone in the Bush administration lied? ( Remember, a lie is a statement that is/was known to be false when it is/was made ).

Ron
05/20/2004 04:34:22 PM · #21
Is one enough, or would you like ten? A hundred?

Here is one:

On 1/17/03 at a photo op at Walter Reed Hospital, where he brazenly posed with WOUNDED VETERANS, Bush said, quote,

"Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.”

Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].


Does this example not count because Bush didn't *know* it was a lie - because he never reads newspapers? :D
05/20/2004 04:35:43 PM · #22
Apply the same test to either of the Clintons.

Sadam surely knew he had no chance facing the US head to head and must huncker back and fight as snippers and homicide bombers.....what we see now.

Message edited by author 2004-05-20 16:55:15.
05/20/2004 04:48:57 PM · #23
Here is another one, a real whopper, as displayed in his book, " The Lies of George W. Bush" by David Corn, which the Wall Street Journal calls " carefully documented":

"I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]."
- George W. Bush

As the Enron scandal reached the White House in early 2002, Bush uttered this remark, claiming he had nothing to do with Lay until after winning the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. It was an apparent and clumsy effort to diminish his relationship with the now-disgraced Enron chief. But in1994, Lay and Enron had been leading contributors to Bush’s campaign. And Lay—long a patron of Bush’s father—had worked with Bush in political settings prior to 1994. In a pre-scandal interview, Lay noted he had been "very close to George W." for years before1994. (In the mid-1980s, Bush’s oil venture was in a partnership with Enron.) Bush also claimed that his administration had been of absolutely no help to Enron. That might have been true during the scam-based company’s final days. But in the months preceding that, the Bush administration had assisted Enron in a variety of ways. This included appointing individuals recommended by Lay as top energy regulators and opposing wholesale price caps on electricity during the California energy crisis, a move that came after Lay (whose electricity-selling company was using manipulative tactics to gouge California) urged the White House to block price caps.
05/20/2004 05:18:06 PM · #24
Originally posted by David Ey:

Apply the same test to either of the Clintons.


I love it. The INSTANT someone points out that the Bush administration and the truth are mutually exclusive, the subject gets changed to finger pointing at, guess who, the republicans favorite attention-diverter, Bill Clinton. :D

Well, let's see, then. President Clinton said " I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

For that, the republicans dragged him and this country through the slimiest witch sexhunt I have ever witnessed, culminating in a pathetic and constitutionally absurd impeachment.

For what? For not shouting to the world (for some reason) about his private life, which hurt no one but his family.

But when Bush lies, tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children die horribly. Our nations coffers are gutted with the profits going to the filthy rich, not the needy, and your children and their children will likely pay for it. Those of us with AARP cards may never see the Social Security rightfully ours, and the Bushies and their fat cat friends are laughing about it.

Maybe it's just me, but I see an enormous difference in kind and scale between the transgressions of these two men, Bush and Clinton. A difference which deserves better than a quick change of subject, or a lack of examination.

Sorry to get all riled up.
05/20/2004 05:35:03 PM · #25
Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Is one enough, or would you like ten? A hundred?

Here is one:

On 1/17/03 at a photo op at Walter Reed Hospital, where he brazenly posed with WOUNDED VETERANS, Bush said, quote,

"Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.”

Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].


Does this example not count because Bush didn't *know* it was a lie - because he never reads newspapers? :D


You need to get the "real" truth instead of believing the "edited" truth that you find in the left leaning web sites. For a more realistic view, you should read THIS article from the Washington Post, no less. An excerpt:

"The restrictions, which take effect today, apply to what the agency calls Category 8 veterans, the lowest priority in health care. These are veterans with relatively high incomes who do not suffer from military service-related disabilities or health problems. Category 8 income levels vary depending on geographic location, but Principi said generally the restrictions will apply to veterans with annual incomes of $30,000 to $35,000 or higher.

The restrictions will apply only to new enrollees and will not affect the 1.4 million Category 8 veterans who currently receive health care from the VA, he said.

Principi is required by law to set eligibility rules for the VA health care system every year...Principi informed leaders of veterans groups of his decision yesterday morning. Spokesmen for the groups said they understood why the restrictions were being imposed, but they lashed out at Congress for what they called inadequate funding of VA health care. "Without proper funding, the secretary is never going to get [the backlog] down, so what he has done is to make the tough business decision," said Bob Wallace, executive director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "If they can't take care of them, it's unconscionable to let them continue to enroll. The real bad guys in this is the Congress because they haven't fully funded the VA. I don't want to see anybody excluded from care, but we can't allow these false expectations and these lines to get longer and longer."

Note that even the executive director of the VFW blames the Congress, not the Administration. Note, too, that the VA is REQUIRED by LAW to set the eligibility rules each fiscal year so as to be within the Congressionally approved budget.

To the men and women that Bush was talking to ( not Category 8 folks ) he was telling the absolute truth. The fact that the Congress did not support his position is not his fault.

Ron
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/28/2021 01:16:50 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/28/2021 01:16:50 AM EDT.